I believe that colonialism and acculturation are inextricably linked. When you move into someone else's home and stay there long enough, you're going to start acting and behaving like them to some degree.
Acculturation effects national identity regardless of the political conception and organization of the state. That dynamic may not occur over one generation, but over several generations, it most certainly will occur.

Although colonialism and acculturation can be linked, they are not inextricably so. They are not “difficult or impossible to untangle or untie”. They are but a possibility as being linked, but in particular situations and amongst particular peoples and cultures. I would say that transculturation and diffusion would be more likely to occur unless a people are forced to adapt to an alien people who have become numerous and dominating to effectively supplant a people, then there may be some acculturation, but people will resist, as we can see with Native Americans~Amerindians and Native Hawaiians.

Through acculturation, one people of a particular ethnic group, with their own particular culture may adopt the beliefs, language patterns and behaviors of another group, but it would not necessarily be in totality or as a type of exacting “xerox copy imprint”. There would be modification based upon the adopting people’s own culture, history and their relationship with the other whose culture is being adopted.

Hawaiians were not colonized at first. The Polynesian peoples who made up the pre-Cook Hawaiian Archipelago had a class system segregating people into general categories of ali‘i (Chiefs, Royalty), kahuna (Teachers/Priests) and maka‘ainana (commoners) with a rigid social code of Kapu (Tapu, Taboo). The islands were separated into chiefdoms and there was constant warring amongst the various island factions. Not until after King Kamehameha forcibly and violently united all the islands under him, there were differing dialects and cultural friction. The British came in the form of Captain Cook and Hawaii began a road of modernizing, going from wood and stone implements, canoes and surfboards to having European ships, metal weapons and implements and the firepower of guns and cannons. King Kamehameha benefited greatly with the help of boatswain John Young and his compatriot Isaac Davis. The Hawaiians then went through the process of transculturation, whereby elements of European cultures and modern methods and means were adopted by the Hawaiian people, the Hawaiian Culture itself was transformed, but not replaced and supplanted.

The Hawaiian ali‘i modeled there monarchy and constitution after the British Monarch and Great Britain. Europeans came to Hawaii, mostly men, who usually married native women, and they themselves learned the Hawaiian language and aspects of Hawaiian Culture. All sorts of people came to the Hawaiian Islands, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Prussian, Spanish, Russian and Austrian came from Europe as well as European-Americans and freed African-American slaves from the American continent. Chinese started landing in Hawaii as early as 1789, when a few Chinese sailors jumped ship. Most of the men married native Hawaiian women, while others brought their women with them. But everyone who came, became a part of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under a Government that was ruled by Native Hawaiian Royalty. By 1820 the Protestant Missionaries created a written form of the Hawaiian language, and by 1863, Hawaii became one of the most literate nations in the world. Native Hawaiians could read, write and speak in at least two languages, English and Hawaiian.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s, and especially after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, that massive waves of foreigners were imported to Hawaii. Immigrants, settlers and colonizers who were brought in by the hundreds of thousands. Thusly, by 1920, 50% of the Hawaii population was Japanese. Hawaiian language, culture and customs were outlawed. Plantation pidgin became the dominant lingo and Native Hawaiians became an underclass of uneducated, marginalized people, who were still good for hula, luau and lei-making. Hawaiians became outpopulated by the foreign laborers who primarily came to Hawaii to make money and find more land for their people.

What is my point? The Hawaiians started out in control of their destiny, albeit a decimated and heavily influenced people by European modernity and Missionary zeal, but still, the Hawaiian people themselves had a say in their ethnic identity and culture. But the massive unabated immigration of foreigners effectively supplanted the native people and culture, into what is the reality of today, although Hawaii is touted as a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial paradise of harmony, the fact remains that Asians and Asian Cultures dominate, especially the Japanese, who came to power soon before Statehood in 1959, and have continued to be dominant socially, economically and politically. Hawaiian people and Hawaiian Culture are the “host”, very much like how the tourist industry is fueled by “Hawaiianess”. That is why there is such a fight for the Kamehameha Schools. To ensure that those children who are of Native Hawaiian ancestry (blood, genealogy) will be educated in order to compete in the modern world and at that same time be able to know and have pride in Hawaiian ethnic identity and be a Hawaiian culturally. The fact that some people do not find a problem with mass immigration of differing peoples into another people native lands, effectively outpopulating and more than likely supplanting the native people, is most troublesome to me, for it is a form of forced colonialism that has no place whatsoever in today’s world.

Colonialism of the past is just that, of the past, a world that was different and of very different beliefs and mentality. Today’s people have even more of a right to not be outpopulated and supplanted in their own native, indigenous, ancestral lands for the people of today know that what happened in the past was wrong, now, in the present. It never ceases to astound me that some people will justify any and all wrongs to be visited on peoples today because that is what some people of the past did, in a very different world, where there was no such thing as human rights, indigenous rights or the concept of treating people humanely. The continued warped justification that any and all western, European, White lands, homeland and countries are rightfully being overwhelmed by immigrants, migrants, settlers and colonizers is, to me, like living in the past when this was the norm for that time, in the long ago past, but the reasons, rationale and justification for forcing primarily, if not only, white peoples to be “flooded by waves of foreigners” is, to me, much more insidious, intentionally harmful and knowingly purposeful. This is not the times of the past. People today know full well that is it wrong to supplant a native, indigenous people in their ancestral homeland, nation and country. People know this! It is the right of a particular people to, they themselves, decide how and when their culture changes, evolves, adopts or adapts, and not the immigrants, foreigners, settlers, colonizers who seek to supplant a native people by importing and transplanting their “culture, customs, ways, values, traditions, and faith” in another locale under the hypocritical banner of multiculturalism.

Evolution has always involved one thing dying so that something else can be born. "Genocide" is a scare tactic term. It has no relevance to the real world in this context. The Picts and Gaels were not the victims of genocide, their culture evolved into a new, emerging immigrant/dominant culture.

Evolution is a natural process of a particular species adapting to its’ environment. It is a slow process of adaptation and change. Interesting that you state in evolution “has always involved one thing dying so that something else can be born”, as if you find nothing wrong with killing off unique ethnicities and cultures, because it is a natural form of evolution.

There is nothing whatsoever natural about the forced mass immigration of peoples upon a native people in their native country and forcing the native people to change and adapt to the foreigners.

A native, indigenous people, the English, systematically being outpopulated, supplanted and replaced by non-English ethnic groups. An entire national, political and ethnic group, that being British people (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish ~ native, indigenous Brits) being destroyed or ruined completely, through the systematic tearing down of all that is English and Native Brit, effectively demolishing British heritage, ancestry, customs, traditions, values, way of life in native Brit lands, by transforming the U.K. into a country for foreign ethnicities and cultures to transplant and supplant the native ethnic group.

Sounds rather genocidal to me…

Evolution is a natural process that occurs over a long period of time, allowing a species to grow, change and evolve in order to fit its environment better.

Hawaii is a world-class showcase of evolutionary process. In fact, in many ways it surpasses the examples from the Galapagos Islands. Hawaii’s extreme isolation coupled with its phenomenal array of life zones allowed for the small pool of genetic information that arrived here to evolve in spectacular fashion.

Mutations and adaptations allowed species to inhabit different niches than their ancestors. This is called adaptive radiation and is nowhere better developed than in the Hawaiian Islands.

Hawaii also has the best example of adaptive radiation in the bird world. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers, Drepanidinae, evolved from one finch like bird into an astonishing array of species. The original colonizer was probably a seedeater. Over millennia the birds adapted and coevolved with plants for food sources.

Evolution takes time and is a natural process, not a forced, swift, unabated mass immigration of humans into a native people’s land where the native people are forced to adapt and adopt the foreigners’ ways. This is not evolution but slow motion genocide.

Protecting unique types and species indigenous to Hawaii is of paramount importance, whether birds, plants or insects. Why would humans of unique ethnic, cultural and indigenous groups not be accorded the same? Especially within their native lands?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShakaZulu

I believe that "there will always be an England."

We have a saying in Hawaii, there is no Hawaii without the Hawaiians...

After having debated anti-racists for three-years, I have yet to come across a single anti-racist who is capable of presenting an intellectual argument in defense of anti-racism. Are there any anti-racists out there who can defend anti-racism without resorting to intellectual dishonesty, emotionally-charged rhetoric and hypocrisy?

I think that's because there isn't really an argument against it besides the "everyone can live together in harmony" crap that the hippies kept going after Martin Luther King Jr. said that he thinks everyone should be happy together. The fact is that since the dawn of time there has been war, and war is not friendly... War's solve problems, but only for one side, so the opposing side (the side that lost the war) still has a problem. You see, not everyone can live together and still be happy. That has been tried time and time again and look where it got people. The hippies all either overdosed on drugs and died, went to jail for using illegal drugs, or died when they were 40 years old because they used PCP 3 times a day back when they were 23 years old. Even in the religion Christianity there is an extreme amount of violence. The "God" and "Savior of mens souls" wiped out entire villages of people, and even flooded the Earth and killed every person on it except for one family... So even the most peaceful of things like Christians are guilty of some sin, which is sac-religous. So untill the people in other communities find a new argument, there won't be any intelligent arguments against White Nationalism or Racism. And if you look at the advancements of countries like Africa, Sierra Leone, o any other country of the such, they won't be capable of having an intelligent conversation even if you slapped them across the face with new materials to argue with.

So you understand then that it is perfectly natural for whites to resist non-white colonisation of our lands? After all we are only operating by the programming of evolution.

Really?

So you believe the holocaust was a scare tactic term and the Jews were never deliberately exterminated?

It has no relevance because its whites you mean.

I wonder Shaka if the people of Africa were being displaced by mass white colonisation would you be so blasé then?

Of course they weren’t the victims of genocide; they weren’t displaced by any large scale incoming migration. The Scots conquered the Pictish kingdom via a political move not mass colonisation.

There will be, provided the English wake up and resist the colonisation of our lands.

Yes, I understand that resistance to colonization is perfectly natural. This isn't the first time in world history that it has happened!
You left out the "in this context" part of my statement. There is a significant difference between the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis and a white English girl choosing to marry a black Jamaican immigrant.
Whether its whites, blacks, yellows, browns or reds, the context is completely different.
The people of Southern Africa were displaced by massive white and Dutch colonization. The entire African continent was subjugated, colonized and divided up between the European powers. After all, Shaka of the Zulus was one southern African leader who resisted European colonization.
The social history of every continent with the exception of Antarctica is one of migration, colonization, imperialism, conquest, subjugation, assimilation, acculturation and integration. Its been going on for four millennia now.
Resistance to the colonization of England might start with a change of UK immigration policies. The people coming to England from abroad are coming with the permission of your government. THAT's the primary reason why it ISN'T a genocide. The elected representatives of the white English are doing it to themselves, its not being done to you by some non-English power.
Up your birthrate and limit immigration... "et voia."

Although colonialism and acculturation can be linked, they are not inextricably so. They are not “difficult or impossible to untangle or untie”. They are but a possibility as being linked, but in particular situations and amongst particular peoples and cultures. I would say that transculturation and diffusion would be more likely to occur unless a people are forced to adapt to an alien people who have become numerous and dominating to effectively supplant a people, then there may be some acculturation, but people will resist, as we can see with Native Americans~Amerindians and Native Hawaiians.

Through acculturation, one people of a particular ethnic group, with their own particular culture may adopt the beliefs, language patterns and behaviors of another group, but it would not necessarily be in totality or as a type of exacting “xerox copy imprint”. There would be modification based upon the adopting people’s own culture, history and their relationship with the other whose culture is being adopted.

Hawaiians were not colonized at first. The Polynesian peoples who made up the pre-Cook Hawaiian Archipelago had a class system segregating people into general categories of ali‘i (Chiefs, Royalty), kahuna (Teachers/Priests) and maka‘ainana (commoners) with a rigid social code of Kapu (Tapu, Taboo). The islands were separated into chiefdoms and there was constant warring amongst the various island factions. Not until after King Kamehameha forcibly and violently united all the islands under him, there were differing dialects and cultural friction. The British came in the form of Captain Cook and Hawaii began a road of modernizing, going from wood and stone implements, canoes and surfboards to having European ships, metal weapons and implements and the firepower of guns and cannons. King Kamehameha benefited greatly with the help of boatswain John Young and his compatriot Isaac Davis. The Hawaiians then went through the process of transculturation, whereby elements of European cultures and modern methods and means were adopted by the Hawaiian people, the Hawaiian Culture itself was transformed, but not replaced and supplanted.

The Hawaiian ali‘i modeled there monarchy and constitution after the British Monarch and Great Britain. Europeans came to Hawaii, mostly men, who usually married native women, and they themselves learned the Hawaiian language and aspects of Hawaiian Culture. All sorts of people came to the Hawaiian Islands, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Prussian, Spanish, Russian and Austrian came from Europe as well as European-Americans and freed African-American slaves from the American continent. Chinese started landing in Hawaii as early as 1789, when a few Chinese sailors jumped ship. Most of the men married native Hawaiian women, while others brought their women with them. But everyone who came, became a part of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under a Government that was ruled by Native Hawaiian Royalty. By 1820 the Protestant Missionaries created a written form of the Hawaiian language, and by 1863, Hawaii became one of the most literate nations in the world. Native Hawaiians could read, write and speak in at least two languages, English and Hawaiian.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s, and especially after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, that massive waves of foreigners were imported to Hawaii. Immigrants, settlers and colonizers who were brought in by the hundreds of thousands. Thusly, by 1920, 50% of the Hawaii population was Japanese. Hawaiian language, culture and customs were outlawed. Plantation pidgin became the dominant lingo and Native Hawaiians became an underclass of uneducated, marginalized people, who were still good for hula, luau and lei-making. Hawaiians became outpopulated by the foreign laborers who primarily came to Hawaii to make money and find more land for their people.

What is my point? The Hawaiians started out in control of their destiny, albeit a decimated and heavily influenced people by European modernity and Missionary zeal, but still, the Hawaiian people themselves had a say in their ethnic identity and culture. But the massive unabated immigration of foreigners effectively supplanted the native people and culture, into what is the reality of today, although Hawaii is touted as a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial paradise of harmony, the fact remains that Asians and Asian Cultures dominate, especially the Japanese, who came to power soon before Statehood in 1959, and have continued to be dominant socially, economically and politically. Hawaiian people and Hawaiian Culture are the “host”, very much like how the tourist industry is fueled by “Hawaiianess”. That is why there is such a fight for the Kamehameha Schools. To ensure that those children who are of Native Hawaiian ancestry (blood, genealogy) will be educated in order to compete in the modern world and at that same time be able to know and have pride in Hawaiian ethnic identity and be a Hawaiian culturally. The fact that some people do not find a problem with mass immigration of differing peoples into another people native lands, effectively outpopulating and more than likely supplanting the native people, is most troublesome to me, for it is a form of forced colonialism that has no place whatsoever in today’s world.

Colonialism of the past is just that, of the past, a world that was different and of very different beliefs and mentality. Today’s people have even more of a right to not be outpopulated and supplanted in their own native, indigenous, ancestral lands for the people of today know that what happened in the past was wrong, now, in the present. It never ceases to astound me that some people will justify any and all wrongs to be visited on peoples today because that is what some people of the past did, in a very different world, where there was no such thing as human rights, indigenous rights or the concept of treating people humanely. The continued warped justification that any and all western, European, White lands, homeland and countries are rightfully being overwhelmed by immigrants, migrants, settlers and colonizers is, to me, like living in the past when this was the norm for that time, in the long ago past, but the reasons, rationale and justification for forcing primarily, if not only, white peoples to be “flooded by waves of foreigners” is, to me, much more insidious, intentionally harmful and knowingly purposeful. This is not the times of the past. People today know full well that is it wrong to supplant a native, indigenous people in their ancestral homeland, nation and country. People know this! It is the right of a particular people to, they themselves, decide how and when their culture changes, evolves, adopts or adapts, and not the immigrants, foreigners, settlers, colonizers who seek to supplant a native people by importing and transplanting their “culture, customs, ways, values, traditions, and faith” in another locale under the hypocritical banner of multiculturalism.

In most cultures there are traditionalists who maintain the ancient artifacts of the indigenous culture, the bi-culturalists who bridge a dominant culture and emerging new sub-cultures or cultures,
and the acculturated, those who leave the traditional culture behind and adopt the folkways of a new or dominant culture. You will see all three groups among native Hawaiians: those traditionalists fighting for independence and maintaining the traditions, particularly language of their forefathers, the bi-culturals, those who feel allegiance to indigenous Hawaiian culture but exist within the larger emerging multiculture of the islands and the acculturated, those who are native Hawaiian but identify more with the Hawaiian-American culture and statehood.
I agree with you that there is no need for acculturation to mean a total loss of one's traditional identity, rather acculturation is usually a blending of the two, hence my category of "bi-cultural."
I also agree with you that people should not be forced to give up their racial and cultural heritage against their will. It is the responsibility of the individual to resist such an attack on one's identity.
However it is also true that acculturation and becoming bi-cultural is a choice that individuals should be allowed to make. In the modern world where no place on earth is more than two days plane ride from any other place on earth, differing peoples are going to have significant contact with each other and interact with each other in ways that only a very few adventurers like James Cook and crew did in the late 18th century. Times have changed.
For example, I happen to love vacationing in Hana, Maui where I have spent a month each year for the past five years. I visited Hana first about 8 years ago and fell in love with the beauty and the people. Hamoa Bay has become my favorite place on earth! I have also visited Oahu, the Big Island and Kauaii. One month a year does NOT make me the least bit Hawaiian, I'm still a tourist but with an affinity for the local culture that one trip only would not provide.
I think we are basically in agreement that it is important for every culture to have its traditionalists who will not allow the culture to be overrun or disappear into obscurity. I support traditional cultures on every continent. At the same time, the world has become a very small place with modern technology and peoples are going to be living and interacting together in increasing frequency, all over the globe. Its inevitable. While that complicates the process of maintaining one's cultural integrity, I am heartened by the fact that more and more people who live bi-cultural lives and rediscovering their traditional cultural heritage and taking pride in it and value maintaining their heritage and cultural identity.
I fully support each nation setting strict limits on immigration as to not be outpopulated by immigrants. Japan and Iceland are models of nations that take a very measured and controlled approach to immigration and I applaud them for it.

Location: The Weary in spirit cannot withstand fate, and nothing comes of venting spleen; wherefore those eager for glory often hold some ache imprisoned in their hearts.

Posts: 6,183

Re: Wanted: An Intellectual Argument in Defense of Anti-Racism

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShakaZulu
Yes, I understand that resistance to colonization is perfectly natural.

So you support the aims of WN then?

Quote:

You left out the "in this context" part of my statement. There is a significant difference between the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis and a white English girl choosing to marry a black Jamaican immigrant.

United Nations 1948 definition of Genocide:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Mass colonisation, which we know is against the wishes of the British public fits this criteria.

Just as German Jews were persecuted by their government so are indigenous Britons persecuted by our government. The governments own statistics show conclusively that whites are being out bred and that land needed to sustain our people is being built upon to house immigrants.

Quote:

Whether its whites, blacks, yellows, browns or reds, the context is completely different.

Yes I am aware you run a double standard, if it’s whites you seem to deem it acceptable to displace them from their lands. Am I right?

Quote:

The people of Southern Africa were displaced by massive white and Dutch colonization. The entire African continent was subjugated, colonized and divided up between the European powers. After all, Shaka of the Zulus was one southern African leader who resisted European colonization.

Many Indian princes welcomed the British, the people didn’t. Many African princes willingly sold their own people into slavery.

I’m not justifying what happened in India, Africa or North America.

Quote:

The social history of every continent with the exception of Antarctica is one of migration, colonization, imperialism, conquest, subjugation, assimilation, acculturation and integration. Its been going on for four millennia now.

Right.

Quote:

Resistance to the colonization of England might start with a change of UK immigration policies.

UK immigration policy won't be changed, the government makes promises and then does nothing to implement them. How can they anyway when they are ruled by the EU? Now that the government, again against the wishes of the people isn't democracy wonderful! I don't know why the Muslims resist David Milliband's threat/promise to bring it to the Middle East, have signed the Lisbon Treaty our borders will now be controlled by the EU.

There are two options. The first is a nationalist government gaining power, not a chance in our current system designed specifically to keep the ruling elite in power.

The second option.......I don't believe I need to paint a picture but civil unrest is a nice euphemism for blood shed and civil strife.

I prefer option one, I am pretty certain we will get option two.

If you don't listen to the men of words you will listen to the men of swords.

Has history ever shown different?

Quote:

The people coming to England from abroad are coming with the permission of your government. THAT's the primary reason why it ISN'T a genocide.

So by your definition then the German people were responsible for the holocaust because the Nazi government perpetrated the action? The Russian people were responsible for the death of Ukrainians during the 1930’s famine because the Soviet government withheld aid? That African people’s are responsible for slavery because their rulers sold them into it?

Or is this a case of you applying double standards based upon the race of the subject?

Quote:

The elected representatives of the white English are doing it to themselves, its not being done to you by some non-English power.

The supposed “elected” representatives don’t represent even 25% of the population.

Quote:

Up your birthrate

Fair enough, but to sustain a viable population and resources to feed those extra mouths we would have to deport non-white aliens. You agree with that?

Quote:

and limit immigration... "et voia."

The British public is overwhelmingly against immigration, yet not one politician in the House of Commons or Lords will lift a finger to prevent further immigration or alter the supposedly democratic system to allow greater opportunity for parties that will to enter power.

We have seen consistently that our supposed democratically elected leaders don’t listen to the people or practise democracy whether that is with holding votes or refusing to work with councillors who don’t toe the establishment line.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Mass colonisation, which we know is against the wishes of the British public fits this criteria.

Just as German Jews were persecuted by their government so are indigenous Britons persecuted by our government. The governments own statistics show conclusively that whites are being out bred and that land needed to sustain our people is being built upon to house immigrants.

Yes I am aware you run a double standard, if it’s whites you seem to deem it acceptable to displace them from their lands. Am I right?

Many Indian princes welcomed the British, the people didn’t. Many African princes willingly sold their own people into slavery.

I’m not justifying what happened in India, Africa or North America.

Right.

UK immigration policy won't be changed, the government makes promises and then does nothing to implement them. How can they anyway when they are ruled by the EU? Now that the government, again against the wishes of the people isn't democracy wonderful! I don't know why the Muslims resist David Milliband's threat/promise to bring it to the Middle East, have signed the Lisbon Treaty our borders will now be controlled by the EU.

There are two options. The first is a nationalist government gaining power, not a chance in our current system designed specifically to keep the ruling elite in power.

The second option.......I don't believe I need to paint a picture but civil unrest is a nice euphemism for blood shed and civil strife.

I prefer option one, I am pretty certain we will get option two.

If you don't listen to the men of words you will listen to the men of swords.

Has history ever shown different?

So by your definition then the German people were responsible for the holocaust because the Nazi government perpetrated the action? The Russian people were responsible for the death of Ukrainians during the 1930’s famine because the Soviet government withheld aid? That African people’s are responsible for slavery because their rulers sold them into it?

Or is this a case of you applying double standards based upon the race of the subject?

The supposed “elected” representatives don’t represent even 25% of the population.

Fair enough, but to sustain a viable population and resources to feed those extra mouths we would have to deport non-white aliens. You agree with that?

The British public is overwhelmingly against immigration, yet not one politician in the House of Commons or Lords will lift a finger to prevent further immigration or alter the supposedly democratic system to allow greater opportunity for parties that will to enter power.

We have seen consistently that our supposed democratically elected leaders don’t listen to the people or practise democracy whether that is with holding votes or refusing to work with councillors who don’t toe the establishment line.

So what do we do now?

Yes, I support the racial pride and racial preservation goals of white nationalism.
I can't help it if the British people continue to vote in Labour, Liberal or Conservative governments. It seems to me that the British peoples have made it clear that they don't oppose immigration, they only oppose UNREGULATED immigration. In that way the British majority are similar to the American majority.

To take this in a new direction, I would offer the following as an example of an anti-racism argument:

The cross breeding of the "physically stronger" black race, with their more frail white counterparts, can only serve to enhance the white race's, and by extension, the human race's survivability.

Slavery accomplished more then oppression of blacks in America. It also created a super race that now dominates nearly every conceivable activity where physical ability is measured. Whites lag behind in nearly every major sport. When a new sport comes along, it usually takes a few years for blacks (or non whites) to begin to dominate (take the UFC for example). This pattern has held true throughout our entire history. Not only can blacks do it, but time and again, they have shown they can usually do it better. White's new this intrinsically and that is why it took so long to integrate (sports for example), not because of a fear of being next to a black person (i.e.: major league teams routinely played the negroe teams, and lost), but from a fear of not being better then one.

Closed gene pools are not a good thing, genetically speaking (take WVA for example). The less genes you have in the pool, the more chance you have of winding up with undesirable traits (not superficial traits like the way one looks, but rather important factors such as health, strength). Not surprisingly, the zest not to intermingle with other races is precisely why whites, per capita, have a more difficult time siring children then blacks. In vitro fertilization is marketed to whites, not blacks.

Without going into too much more detail I would say to you proud white folks, convinced of your superiority and dominion over the world, to take a step back and think for a moment. Am I dooming my beloved race to extinction by not cross breeding with non-whites? Why is it that these inferior races dominate most physical activities and are at least on par with mentally (not talking about gang bangers or drug dealers)? How can I be part of the superior race when that is the case?